Author
Topic: Lobbyist Handprints on Obamacare (Read 1631 times)

So, now, of course, she’s taking her third spin through the revolving door, to run the lobbying shop at Pharma giant Johnson & Johnson. This helps highlight what Obamacare was about: further enmeshing healthcare and government, thus creating more demand for revolving-door lobbyists.

Is it supposed to be news that Lobbyists and political staffers are basically the same industry? They are constantly jumping back and forth. Thats how it works.

Staffers become lobbyists, because they need to make some money, and lobbyers hire staffers, because they understand the political system. But, they bounce back and forth, in order to stay connected, to be more valuable as a lobbyist.

And it is a surprise that organizations that are intimately connected to the new policies go out of their way to hire people who know them inside and out from having helped write them?

This whole thing seems a bit disingenuous to me. Yeah, everyone is corrupt. But this is also how business works. You hire people who are experts on the subject.

I am sure you would see the exact same trend if you look at staffers who dealt with energy bills, and their being hired by oil companies and lobby firms. It doesn't mean they were on the take when they worked on the bill, it just means they are experts on the subjects, and have the connections to do the job better than someone who wasn't connected with the bill.

I would not say they are conservative mouthpiece. MSNBC is almost as bad as FOX is in their bias. Their reporting is biased but at least they let the other talk, FOX rarely does that.

Studies have been done that Fox watchers are the least informed. To quote Ron Burgundy, " That's science."

I don't much care for Murdoch controlling so much media across the English speaking world. It's known that his practices are hardly ethical. It's pretty obvious he has an agenda. Bill Gates is seperating from MSNBC I have read because of their bias. That is a huge difference in ethics to me.

Obama care is full of lobbyist stuff, yep. A single payer would be best for costs and it did not happen. It seems to steer people towards insurance companies as much as it helps them.

I would not say they are conservative mouthpiece. MSNBC is almost as bad as FOX is in their bias. Their reporting is biased but at least they let the other talk, FOX rarely does that.

Studies have been done that Fox watchers are the least informed. To quote Ron Burgundy, " That's science."

I don't much care for Murdoch controlling so much media across the English speaking world. It's known that his practices are hardly ethical. It's pretty obvious he has an agenda. Bill Gates is seperating from MSNBC I have read because of their bias. That is a huge difference in ethics to me.

Obama care is full of lobbyist stuff, yep. A single payer would be best for costs and it did not happen. It seems to steer people towards insurance companies as much as it helps them.

Nuclear holocaust is actually the best way to control healthcare - puts the costs to zero once everyone is dead. Find me the plan that promotes the best outcomes.

Obviously I meant those stations are "liberal/progressive mouthpieces, controlled by liberals." Not they are conservative.

Gotta agree with IP. The bias of ABC, NBC, CBs is greatly exaggerated. They lean left but cover the news and editorialized more to a left moderate center.

Fox on the other hand is so far right that I think Republicans are going to start coming forward and start saying that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the rest of that bunch doesn't represent their best interests.

And they don't. That group is so out of touch with most Republicans I know it is not even funny.

The Washington Examiner is a conservative mouthpiece and is owned by the same people who own the weekly standard. Journalism isn't necessarily a word that applies to them.

You realize this applies to ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. too?

ABC, CNN, and CBS were not founded to provide a liberal voice in media, and their allleged bias is really over hyped.

Neither was Examiner (nor Fox). It's editorial board is conservative, but those "news" agencies are all predominantly liberal. And their bias is really NOT over rated.

Quote from: Wiki

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's conservative writers include Byron York (National Review), Michael Barone (American Enterprise Institute, Fox News), and David Freddoso (National Review, author of The Case Against Barack Obama).[4]

The paper endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[11] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[12] On December 14, 2011, it endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.[13]

Wikipedia is hardly a bulletproof source, but according to them, seems like it was bought and re-organizated with the explicit purpose of being a conservative newspaper.

And in my experience, the bias of CNN, ABC, and CBS is wildly overrated. I've heard pundits state in defending Fox that Fox is only doing what CNN, ABC, etc.. have been doing for years,and that's ludicrous.

If there is a bias, its more nuanced, and has to do with time spent on camera, etc..

When ABC, CNN, NBC, does a news story, you can generally accept it as true. The biggest mistakes they've made have been honest ones where they tried to get the news out faster than they probably should've.

Well, with the noted exception of the guy whose name I can't remember that had that thing I can't remember that was linked to GW Bush.

Does every thread in CE need to turn into the same argument about media bias?

Come on, if there is not a discussion to be had about lobbyists and healthcare (or something like that), then I will lock the thread. I'll give it a bit though, just in case someone is interested in that, rather than having the same off topic debate over and over again.

I don't know why it would be surprising to anyone that Lobbyists would have a hand in Obamacare. By expanding the pool of insured citizens he has essentially started a money grab in the industry. Where there is a moneygrab there are going to be interested parties who have lobbyists

I don't know why it would be surprising to anyone that Lobbyists would have a hand in Obamacare. By expanding the pool of insured citizens he has essentially started a money grab in the industry. Where there is a moneygrab there are going to be interested parties who have lobbyists

This I don't have an issue with. When people screamed about socialized medicine in relation to the ACA, what I saw instead was the President instead indefinitely extending the life of the private health insurance industry by tying it via legislation to the american people.

I don't know why it would be surprising to anyone that Lobbyists would have a hand in Obamacare. By expanding the pool of insured citizens he has essentially started a money grab in the industry. Where there is a moneygrab there are going to be interested parties who have lobbyists

This I don't have an issue with. When people screamed about socialized medicine in relation to the ACA, what I saw instead was the President instead indefinitely extending the life of the private health insurance industry by tying it via legislation to the american people.

Yeah, while lobbyists in general make me cringe, they are part of the system, like it or not. Although not sure I the private health insurance industry needed much help here. I would have been a little happier if Obama and company had decided to work harder to keep the healthcare workers and small hospitals in business when they made the bill. But maybe the small hospital lobby is not as powerful as the HMO lobby.